CHAPTER

25
Size Reduction and Separation

Size reduction and size separation are two frequently used operations in food processing.
Probably in the whole of processing industries, next to metallurgical industries, it is food
industries which use size reduction operations of the raw food materials to make into various
cookable, value-added and preservable products. God, who has been kind enough in bestowing a
bounty of nature of food (raw) materials, has not provided them in a form ready to consume.
Every raw material, including fruits and vegetables, needs to be brought down in size to bring it
to consumable form. Even food grains, which are hardly of the size of a few millimeters to one
millimeter and less, also need to be ground and milled before using. Milling is a form of size
reduction, and results in:
∑ reduced particle size of the food material
∑ increased surface area
which have many obvious advantages which are given in Table 25.1.

Table 25.1 Advantages of Size Reduction

∑ Particles of definite sizes are desired for certain processing as in canning of fruits and
vegetables or making of fruit bars.
∑ The increased surface area will help in enhanced heat and mass transfer; and hence, the
rate processes are enhanced.
∑ The reduced particle size would enable accessibility to the interior of the food materials
as in the leaching of spice oleoresins or oil from oil seeds.
∑ Intimate contact with various other ingredients is possible as in the case of preparation
of soup mixes, etc.
∑ In preparation of certain soup mixes/gruel mixes/baby foods etc. small particle sizes
alone will work, and hence, size reduction/milling is not a choice but a compulsion.
∑ In preparation of certain baby foods/weaning foods where drum drying is used both for
gelatinization of starch and drying of the prepared foods, reduced particle size is a
necessity and not an option.

529
530 Fundamentals of Food Engineering

Most of the process operations related to size reduction are mostly applied to the solid foods.
However, size reduction is also desired with liquids. Two immiscible liquids are broken into
smaller fragments so that they can be mixed well to make an emulsion. This is known as
dispersion of one immiscible liquid in the other.
In the present chapter, we restrict ourselves to mostly size reduction operations related to
solids in view of their industrial importance. For example, making wheat grains into flour, sooji,
semolina is an industrial operation used world wide for making various bakery products, pasta
foods, extruded products, chapattis and various other Indian traditional foods.

25.1 THEORY OF SIZE REDUCTION

Size reduction is a highly energy inefficient process.
When energy is applied in the form of a stress on the
material, it breaks into two or more pieces resulting in
generation of new surface area. Energy is used to break
or overcome the intra molecular forces of the solid C
B
particles, so that they are broken into pieces and new A

Stress
area is created. The fracture mechanics of a particle is
schematically represented by Figure 25.1. Grinding
energy is one which is utilized to create new surface
area. Remaining amount of energy is dissipated in the
O
form of heat. Here, we may define a term called as Strain
crushing efficiency (h c) which is the ratio of the Figure 25.1 Stress-strain diagram of
energy utilized for creating new surface area to the a food material. A: elastic
energy absorbed by the solids for crushing or grinding limit, B: yield point,
C : breaking point.
(McCabe, et al. 1993).
Thus, hc is defined as:
Es ( A p - A f )
hc = (25.1)
E
where Es is surface energy of food material per unit area, Af and Ap are areas per unit mass of the
feed and product, respectively and, E is energy absorbed by unit mass of material.
Thus, the term (Ap – Af) indicates new surface area created per unit mass of food material.
Even though there are some difficulties in measurement of various terms in Eq. (25.1) accurately
from fracture physics data, it gives us an indicative relationship between the energy utilized for
creating new surface area and the actual energy supplied for crushing or grinding. The efficiency
of crushing is always poor, and is of the order of 1–3 per cent only (McCabe, et al. 1993: Prasher
1987). The remaining amount of supplied energy is wasted as heat, since grinding generates a lot
of heat in the materials. Sometimes, the generated heat is so much that it is detrimental for
product quality. For example, in the case of grinding of spices, the generated heat would
volatilize the essential oils which are volatile in nature resulting in deterioration of the product. In
such cases, we may need to go for cryogenic grinding.
 Size Reduction and Separation 531
25.2 VARIOUS TYPES OF SIZE REDUCTION
Size reduction is also known as comminution in engineering literature. It can be broadly
classified into the following four methods:

25.2.1 Compression
The principle behind compression is application of compressive force or crushing to reduce the
particle size. Nut cracker is a classical example. Crushing rolls or crushing mills are used
industrially to bring down the particle size initially to some smaller sizes. Later they will be
subjected to further processing to bring down the size.

25.2.2 Impact
The force applied at a time with a hammer to the material is known as impact. Hammering is an
example of impact. Industrially, hammer mills/ball mills are used for size reduction. Hammering
is also used initially to break the material into smaller pieces.

25.2.3 Shear
Shearing is an attrition–force or rubbing force applied to the material to bring down the particle
size to finer sizes. Grinding and milling are attrition operations. Grinding stones, disc mills,
chakki mill (stone mill), plate mills are some of the industrial/domestic units.

25.2.4 Cutting
Cutting is a generic terms used to indicate size reduction. Usually cutting means, making a piece
or particle into two pieces. Cutting with a knife or haksaw or saw into smaller pieces are used
industrially. Chopping is also a term used to mean cutting. In the pulping industry, fruits are cut
or chopped into pieces/slices before feeding to the pulper.

25.3 PRINCIPLES AND LAWS OF GRINDING

The grinding laws are based on the energy required to reduce the size of a material to create new
surface. Since grinding is a highly energy inefficient process, calculation of it is very important,
and holds significance in size reduction studies. Some theories have been put forward to calculate
the energy required. All the theories are based on the assumption that the energy required
to create a small change in the particle size is proportional to the size of the particle.
Mathematically, in a differential form it can be expressed as:

dE
- = KLn (25.2)
dL
where dE is the energy required to create a new length dL in a unit mass of particle of length L; K
and n are constants. The negative sign on LHS indicates that E increases as L decreases. There are
different laws which ascribe different valves for n. Most prominent amongst the laws are:
532 Fundamentals of Food Engineering

25.3.1 Rittingers’ Law

Rittingers’ theory was the first theory, originally proposed in the year 1867, and assumes the
valve of n = –2 in Eq. (25.2) which means that an increment in surface is proportional to an
increment in grinding energy. Thus,
dE
- = KL–2
dL
which on integration between the limits Lf and Lp, sizes of the feed and product,

Ê 1 1 ˆ
E = KR Á - ˜ (25.3)
Ë Lp L f ¯

If P is the power required by the mill in terms of kW and m is mass flow rate, then

P
E= (25 .4)
m
Thus, the Rittingers’ law states that the grinding energy is inversely proportional to the
particle size, or grinding rate function should be proportional to the particle size. This is
applicable for a fairly hard materials in a limited range of particle sizes (Prasher 1987).

25.3.2 Kicks’ Law

Subsequently Kicks’ law was proposed in the year 1885 which assumed that the work required to
grind a given mass of material is constant for the same reduction ratio (Lf/Lp) which makes n = – 1
in Eq. (25.2) Thus,
dE
- = KL–1 (25.5)
dL
On integrating Eq (25.5), we get
ÊL ˆ
E = KK ln Á f ˜ (25.6)
Ë Lp ¯

in which KK is Kicks’ constant. This indicates that the grinding energy is proportional to the
logarithm of reduction ratio. This was considered to be a fair representation of the grinding
process. But unfortunately Eq. (25.6) shows that energy required to bring down the particle size
from a very big particle to half its size is same as that required by a small particle to half its size,
i.e., the energy required to bring down the particle size from 10 cm to 5 cm is same as the energy
required to bring down a particle size from 1 mm to 0.5 mm which conceivably is irrational.
Obviously the energy required in the letter case is much more than that required in the
former case.
 Size Reduction and Separation 533
25.3.3 Bonds’ Law
The Rittingers’ and Kicks’ laws did not seem to have been a fair representation of the grinding
process in terms of the energy requirements because of their inherent inadequacies, and do not
lead us to make any coherent conclusions to represent grinding energy requirements on a rational
basis. Bond has proposed a third law in the year 1952 (Bond 1952), which assumed a value of
n = –3/2 which is in between those of Rittingers’ and Kicks’. Since during grinding, all particles
will not have a uniform size, Bond assumed the final particle to be that size of the mesh* in which
80 per cent of the material passes. To dispel the discrepancy with Kicks’ law for reduction ratio,
Bond assumed the final particle size to be the one for which 80 per cent of the product passes
through 100 micron size sieve. Thus, the final particle size is conceived to be 100 microns for
calculation of Bonds’ work index (Wi). Thus, Bonds’ work index is defined as: the gross energy
required (in kWh/ton) by a large quantity of feed having a particle size which accounts for
80 per cent of the feed to reduce the final particle size to a value that 80 per cent of the product
passes through 100 micron sieve.
This leads us after integration of Eq. (25.2) to

P Ê 1 1 ˆ
E= = 10 Wi Á - ˜ (26.7)
m ÁË L p L f ˜¯

In which Wi is Bonds’ work index in kWh/ton, P is in kilowatts, m in tons/hour

E is in kWh/ton, and Lp and Lf are in metres.
If Lp and Lf are expressed in millimeters, Eq. (26.7) becomes (McCabe, et al. 1993):

P Ê 1 1 ˆ
E= = 0.3162 Wi Á - ˜ (26.8)
m ÁË L p L f ˜¯

PROBLEM 25.1 Walde, et al. (1997) reported microwave drying and grinding of gum karaya
samples to make a fine powder of gum karaya. The batch size they have taken was approximately
30 gm and ground in a domestic grinder (555 W capacity). After grinding, the final particle size
was evaluated by sieve analysis to be 0.55 mm. It took 20 s for grinding gum karaya of initial
particle size 5 mm. Find the Bonds’ work index (Wi)
Solution:
Given: Weight of the sample = 30 g
Lf = 5 mm
LP = 0.55 mm
Wattage of grinder = 555 W
Time of grinding = 20 s

*Mesh size and evaluation of final particle size for a material which consists of various sized particles will be dealt
in section 25.6.2.
534 Fundamentals of Food Engineering

555 20
Energy supplied for grinding 30 g of sample = ¥
1000 3600

= 3.08 × 10–3 kWh

Ê 1000 ˆ
E = 3.08 × 10–3 Á = 0.103 kWh/kg
Ë 30 ˜¯

Ê 1 1 ˆ
E = 0.3162 Wi Á - ˜ (25.9)
ÁË L p L f ˜¯

Ê 1 1 ˆ
i.e., 0.103 = 0.3162 Wi Á - ˜ = 0.285 Wi
Ë 0.53 5¯

0.103
Therefore, Wi = = 0.36 kWh/kg
0.285

25.4 SIZE REDUCTION EQUIPMENT

Various size reduction equipment used in the industry can be classified into the following
(McCabe, et ad., 1993), and are shown in Figure 25.2:
(i) Crushers
(ii) Grinders/fine grinders
(iii) Milling machines/attrition mills
(iv) Cutting machines

Size Reduction Equipment

Crushers Grinding mills Fine grinders Milling machines/ Cutting machines

Attrition mills
Jaw crusher Hammer mill Pulverizer Roller mill Knife cutter
Gyratory crusher Ball mill Plate mill Dicing/cubing mill
Rod mill Chakki mill Hacksaw mill

Figure 25.2 Classification of various size reduction equipment.

 Size Reduction and Separation 535
They are describes briefly here,

25.4.1 Jaw Crushers

Jaw crushers are very versatile and are used to bring down the size of a big particle or a lump of
particles into a reasonably smaller sizes, as in the case of crushing of several ores, lime stones,
etc. It finds mostly application in mineral processing and less in food processing. It consists of
typically two jaws, one of them is often stationary and the other is gyrating or moving on a pivot
(Figure 25.3(a)). The course material enters from the top. The moving jaw will be moving
backwards and forwards over the pivot. The clearance between the two jaws is more on the top as
compared to that at the bottom. The material gets crushed in between the two jaws, and the fine
product is discharged from the bottom. The gyratory crusher also operates on the same principle
except that the moving jaw will be actually rotating inside, whereas the outer jaw is fixed. The
clearance between the two jaws will be decreasing as we move from top to bottom
(Figure 25.3(b)).

Course
feed

Feed Feed
Fixed Moving
jaw jaw

Pivot Fine Fine

product product
Fine
product
(a) Jaw crusher (b) Gyratory crusher

Figure 25.3 Crushers.

25.4.2 Hammer Mill

Hammer mills are very commonly used in food industry for fine grinding of solids by impact. It
consists of a centrally rotating shaft to which is attached a disc. The disc has a number of
hammers swinging which are pivoted to the disc at the edge (Figure 25.4). The rotating disc turns
at a very high speed inside a cylindrical casing. The casing is provided with a hard mesh usually
made out of stainless steel. The feed is subjected to beating by the swirling hammers until the
material passes through the mesh. The mesh size is changed depending upon the fineness
required.
536 Fundamentals of Food Engineering

Figure 25.4 Hammer mill.

25.4.3 Plate Mill

Plate mill, also known as disc mill is an attrition mill in which the feed is crushed between two
hard metallic plates (Figure 25.5). Usually one plate is stationary and the other plate rotates. The
stationary plate moves axially to adjust the clearance between two plates or discs. The plates will

Figure 25.5 Plate mill.

 Size Reduction and Separation 537
also have grovings to facilitate easy movement of the feed without slip. In some designs, both the
plates will rotate, but in opposite directions. This will facilitate better grinding of the solids. If the
groves between plates are worn off, they are dismantled, and fresh groves are carved. Otherwise,
grinding becomes very inefficient.
Chakki mill is almost similar to plate mill except that the metallic plates are replaced by hard
stones. It is generally used for grinding of the soft materials. Replacement of the stone once in a
while is a recurring nuisance.

25.4.4 Ball Mill

Ball mill is a typical tumbling mill, in which a large number of balls is contained in a cylindrical
container. The balls are made out of some hard metal. Material is fed into the container alongwith
the balls, and the container is closed by a locking arrangement. Later, the cylinder is kept on two
closely spaced horizontal rods which move in opposite direction (Figure 25.6). As the rods rotate,
the cylinder also rotates. Alongwith it, the balls in the container raise upto the top, and tumble
down. When they tumble down, the balls give a lot of impact force to the solid particles which get
crushed between the bottom balls and falling balls. The material gets crushed in two ways, one is
by the abrasion it receives from the balls and wall of the cylindrical container, and the other is by
the impact force the material receives by the impinging (tumbling) balls. The material reduces to
a fine powder.

Rotating
cylinder

Balls

Supporting
(a) Side view (b) Elevation rods

Figure 25.6 Ball mill.

It is usually a batch operation, in which the feed and balls are fed into the cylinder initially
and closed. Later the cylinder is made to rotate on two horizontal rods. Because of the impact and
abrasion, the material is ground into a fine powder. When the grinding is complete, the mill is
stopped, the contents are discharged. Except for the noise it makes because of the tumbling balls,
the ball mill is an excellent mill for very fine grinding.

25.4.5 Roller Mill

Roller mill is also an abrasive mill, and is almost similar to a plate mill or roller crushers. The
rollers have groves which do not allow slipping of the grains. Generally both the rollers will be
rotating but in opposite directions and often with different speeds. Roller mills are used
extensively in food processing for milling of grains to make flour, sooji, and semolina, especially
538 Fundamentals of Food Engineering

from wheat. In fact, their utility in wheat milling is so much that they become synonymous with
roller flour mills.

25.4.6 Knife Cutter

Knife cutters are a typical cutting equipment used in food processing, especially for cutting and
shredding of soft gelataneous materials like meat chunks, etc. It consists of a rotating plate with
high speed, probably of the order of 200–900 rpm. The rotating plate has 2 to 12 oscillating
knifes made out of stainless steel. They cut the food material several times per minute against the
stationary bed which is a hard metallic screen. The shredded material passes through a screen
which has 5–8 mm openings. The knife cutters are extensively used for shredding meat to fill into
the sausage casing.

25.5 APPLICATIONS OF SIZE REDUCTION IN FOOD PROCESSING

As has been mentioned earlier, food processing is a major user of size reduction operations in
some form or other. All the four major types of size reduction operations viz., cutting, grinding,
impact and rubbing and sometimes a combination of them are used in food processing. Some of
them are shown in Table 25.2. The list is not exhaustive, it is only indicative. Sometimes, even
size reduction of mixed class of food materials like spices, nuts, oil-seeds, cereals, pulses or dry
fruits and vegetables is also done.

Table 25.2 Applications of Size Reduction Operations in Food Processing

S. No. Major area Specific applications

1. Fruits and Slicing of fruits before feeding to the pulper for making the fruit
vegetable processing pulp
Slicing of potato chips
Cutting of raw mango, lemon and other sorts of acid fruits or
vegetables for making pickles
Cutting of fruits and vegetables for usual preservation operations
viz., dehydration or canning, etc.
Cutting of citrus fruits to extract juice in a rosing machine
Shredding of fruits and vegetables in a fruit mill to dehydrate then to
use in the manufacture of soup powders
Cutting of fruits and vegetables to remove the unedible portion
before packaging or keeping for preservation

2. Cereals and pulses Flour milling of grains, especially wheat for making maida, wheat
flour, suji and semolina; perhaps flour milling of wheat is the largest
food processing operation; almost all the wheat all over the world is
milled to flour for human consumption
Milling of minor millets like ragi, bajra to make into flour

(Contd.)
 Size Reduction and Separation 539
Table 25.2 Applications of Size Reduction Operations in Food Processing (Contd.)

S. No. Major Area Specific Applications

Milling of brown rice to remove bran partially by abrasion

technique; almost all the paddy grown all over the world is milled
before it goes for human consumption as a staple food
Milling of most of the pulses to dals to make them ready for cooking
Grinding of some combinations of pulses, oilseeds and spices to
make instant chutney powders
Wet grinding of black gram and green gram for making various
traditional foods of India
Grinding of some non-edible portions of cereals and pulses or minor
grains to make cattle feed

3. Spices and plantation Most of the spices are used in the powder form either individually or
products in mixed form; the spices include chilli, pepper, turmeric, coriander,
cloves, cinnamon, etc.
Coarse grinding of spices like chilli, turmeric, pepper and dry ginger
to extract oleoresins
Wet grinding of ginger and garlic either to dry them as powders or to
make ginger-garlic paste
Grinding of coconut to make copra for drying which is used as
desiccated coconut powder
Wet rubbing of black gingelly seeds to remove the husk before
drying

4. Animal products Virtually almost all the animals and birds are slaughtered by cutting
operation before going for processing
Trimming of fish, prawns, crab and shrimp to remove the unedible
portions before processing/packaging
Cutting of chicken into various edible portions like legs, wings,
breast, etc.
Big chunks of meat pieces in frozen form are cut into smaller pieces
before processing/packaging
Mincing of meat to fill into sausage casings
Grinding of dry fish and shrimp to make poultry feed

25.6 SIZE SEPARATION

When the materials are ground in any size reduction equipment, it is never possible to get all
particle of the same size. Hence application of Eqs. (25.3), (25.6) and (25.9) is hypothetical. In
fact, it is not possible to have uniform feed size as well. For example, when wheat is ground, we
get a variety of products viz., maida, flour, sooji, coarse semolina, fine semolina, and may be
sometimes even unground grains. But many process operations require if not particles of uniform
size, at least particles of a small range of sizes because often the process equipment are designed
540 Fundamentals of Food Engineering

only to handle a certain range of particle sizes. Hence, the necessity to have equipment or
methodology by which the particle should be segregated on the basis of size. This constitutes the
subject matter of this section, and is applicable only for separation of solid particles.

25.6.1 Screening
Screening is a method of segregating or separating particles of different sizes into a range of
particle sizes according to their size alone. When the feed material is dropped on a screen, all the
particles (mostly) smaller than the size of the aperture of the screen pass through the screen. They
are called under-sized or fines; and are represented with + (plus) sign before the particle size. All
the particles above the size of the aperture of the screen will be retained on the screen. They are
known over-sized or tails; and are represented with – (negative) sign before the particle size.
Thus, one screen can separate particles into only two sizes; those which are under-sized and those
which are over-sized. It does not give a correct representation of the size of the particles; because
the under-sized have no limit of their lower size; and similarly the over-sized have no limit of
their upper size.
Hence, to separate particles into a certain range of particle sizes, we use a series of screens
one over the other. All the particles passing through one screen and retained on the other can be
assigned a particle size which is the average of the aperture size of the two screens. Industrial
screens are made out of woven wires, plastic clothes, or metal sheets with perforations or metallic
bars. The screens are normally made out of stainless steel to be able to withstand the wear and
tear. They are normally available in the range of 4 to 400 mesh sizes*.

25.6.2 Standard Screen Series

Average particle size is evaluated on the basis of standard screen analysis. This will help us
segregate particles of sizes 3≤ to 0.0015≤. Standard sieves, also known as test sieves, are made
out of woven wire screens, and are carefully standardized for the mesh size. The mesh openings
are square in shape. The mesh size of the screen is identified by the number of meshes per inch.
Hence, the actual size of the aperture is always less than the mesh number because of the
thickness of the wires. Also it may be noted that as mesh size increases, the aperture size
decreases. Thus, a 100 mesh sieve has an opening of 0.147 mm, whereas a 4 mesh size has
4.699 mm. There are two types of standard sieves available viz.,
∑ BS (British Standard) mesh size, and
∑ Tyler series.
However, in the present book we follow mostly Tyler series. In the Tyler series, the screens
are made out of mesh wire of 0.074 mm size. The size (area) of the aperture in one screen is
exactly twice the size (area) in the lower screen in the series. Hence, the ratio of mesh size of one
screen is equal to 2 (=1.41) times of mesh size of the next lower screen. The Tyler standard
sieve sizes are given in Appendix-11. For example, the clear opening for mesh size 4 is

*See section 25.6.2.

 Size Reduction and Separation 541
4.699 mm, whereas that for mesh size 6 is 3.327. The ratio of 4.699/3.327 is 1.412. Sometimes,
even intermediate screen sizes are also provided in which case the ratio of one mesh size to the
next intermediate mesh size is 4 2 (=1.189). For example, the mesh size of 4 is 4.699 mm,
whereas that for mesh size 5 is 3.962. The ratio of 4.699/3.962 is 1.186.

25.6.3 Average Particle Size

Average particle size is evaluated by carrying out Hammer
screen analysis or particle size analysis. For doing
Top cover
this, a set of series of sieves is taken. The sieves are
Top sieve
stacked with the smallest size at the bottom and the

Gyratory motion of the rod vertically

largest aperture size at the top. The bottom most is a
blind sieve (i.e., the one without openings at all,
also known as pan). The food material is fed to the
top most sieve, and is closed with a lid. The stack is
fixed in a gyratory moving arrangement. On the top
of it, there will be an impinging hammer which hits
on the top once in a while (Figure 25.7). This will
facilitate to remove any particles that get entrapped
in any of the apertures.
Pan
The material collected in each sieve is taken
Gyratory motion
and is weighed to find out the mass fraction of the horizontally
material on each sieve (xi). The particle size of
material retained on any sieve i, is the mean of the Figure 25.7 Stack of sieves with gyratory
motion.
screen opening of that sieve and that of the sieve
above it ((i – 1) sieve). Let us say that the material passes through mesh size 4 and is retained on
mesh size 6, the average particle diameter retained on mesh 6 is equal to the mean of the screen
openings of mesh 4 (4.699 mm) and that of mesh 6 (3.327).
Thus, the dpi on mesh 6 is (4.699 + 3.327)/2 is 4.013 mm. This is known as differential
screen analysis.
We take the average particle size of the whole feed on the basis of mass fractions, which is
known as mass mean diameter (d p ) . Thus,

d p = Sxi d pi (25.10)

We shall explain the calculation of d p with Problem 25.2.

PROBLEM 25.2 After grinding 25 g of wheat grains, the sieve analysis was carried out. The
results are shown in Table 25.3. (a) Calculate average particle size, (b) Find the aperture size
through which 80 per cent of material passes.
542 Fundamentals of Food Engineering

Table 25.3 Particle Size Analysis Data for Problem 25.2

S. No. Tyler mesh size Quantity retained, g

1. 10 1.977
2. 10/20 11.693
3. 20/30 4.508
4. 28/35 1.199
5. 35/48 2,428
6. 48/65 0.63
7. 65/100 1.095
8. 100 1.47

Solution The data in Table 25.3 are written with the details of mesh sizes, etc. in Table 25.4,
from which we can find average particle size.

(a) Average particle size = d p = Sxidpi = 1.039 mm

(b) The data on aperture size, dpi and the cumulative mass fraction are plotted in
Figure 25.8.

Table 25.4 Data for Problem 25.2

S.No. Mesh Clear opening, Average Quantiy, Mass xi dpi, Cumulative

size mm, aperture g fraction mm mass
(Appendix 11) size, mm xi fraction Âxi

1. 10 1.651 ¸ 1.977 0.079 0.13 1.0

˝ 1.242 11.693 0.4677 0.581 0.9206
˛
2. 20 0.833
¸
˝ 0.711 4.508 0.180 0.128 0.453
˛
3. 28 0.589 ¸
˝ 0.503 1.199 0.048 0.0241 0.273
˛
4. 35 0.417 ¸
˝ 0.356 2.428 0.09712 0.0345 0.225
˛
5. 48 0.295 ¸
˝ 0.251 0.63 0.0252 6.3252 × 10–3 0.1278
˛
6. 65 0.208 ¸
˝ 0.178 1.095 0.0438 0.048 0.1026
˛
7. 100 0.147
8. 0.147 1.47 0.0588 0.0864 0.0588

Total 25.0 0.999 1.039

From Figure 25.8, we get d p through which 80 per cent of the feed passes = 1.13 mm.
 Size Reduction and Separation 543
1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7
Cumulative mass fraction

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

13
1.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
Aperture size mm

Figure 25.8 Solution for Problem 25.2.

PROBLEM 25.3 Chakkaravarthi and Rao (2002) reported on the grinding on garlic grits
(28.2 g) which were earlier dried in a microwave oven. The particle size analysis were done using
BS sieves. The data are presented in Table 25.5. Calculate the average particle size.

Table 25.5 Typical Sieve Analysis Data for Grinding of Microwave

Dried Garlic Grits for Problem 25.3

B.S. mesh size Quantity retained in grams

10/20 –
20/30 0.28
30/40 1.37
40/60 9.68
60/80 3.65
80/100 4.86
100 8.36

Solution The cumulative weights and weight fractions are shown in Table 25.6.
Average particle size d p by Eq. (25.10) is:

d p = xidp = 0.245 mm
544 Fundamentals of Food Engineering

Table 25.6 Cumulative Weight Fraction Data for Problem 25.3

S.No. B.S. mesh Average Quantity Weight Cummulative xidpi,

size aperature size retained, gm fraction xi weight, mm
dpi, mm g
Appendix 11

1. 10/20 1.265 – – 28.6 –

2. 20/30 0.675 0.28 0.01 28.2 6.7810–3
3. 30/40 0.46 1.37 0.0485 27.92 0.022
4. 40/60 0.335 9.68 0.343 26.55 0.115
5. 60/80 0.215 3.65 0.129 16.87 0.028
6. 80/100 0.165 4.86 0.172 13.22 0.028
7. 100 0.15 8.36 0.296 8.36 0.044
Total 28.2 1.0 0.245

25.5.4 Effectiveness of Screen

A screen is considered to be highly effective if all the particles which are above the size of the
screen aperture are retained on the top, and all the particles which are below the size of the screen
aperture are passed through the screen as bottoms. This may be considered as an ideal screen
which hardly exists. The ideal screen data are shown in Figure 25.9.

Figure 25.9 Analysis of screen data.

 Size Reduction and Separation 545
In a way, the effectiveness of the screen is also known as the efficiency of the screen. The
effectiveness of a screen is lost due to
(i) insufficient time for the materials to pass through the screen,
(ii) the screen apertures may be elongated or contracted at certain positions,
(iii) some apertures may be blocked by the uneven shaped particles making the screen
aperture size smaller, and
(iv) some wire meshes in the screen may be broken because of wear and tear due to long
usage; this will make the aperture sizes much larger.
Thus, the efficiency or effectiveness of real screens is always less than 1.0.
The screen performance with the overflow and underflow is represented similar to that of a
distillation column with the same notation as shown in Figure 25.10. Material balance on the
screen yields
F=D+B (25.11)

Figure 25.10 Material balance on a screen.

If we consider A is the material which has a particle size less than the aperture size of the
screen and has its fractions in the feed, overflow and underflow as xf, xD, and xB, then material
balance yields:
Fxf = DxD + BxB (25.12)
(A in feed) (A in overflow) (A in bottomflow)

Eliminating B by using Eqs. (25.11) and (25.12), we have

D x f - xB
= ( 25.13)
F xD - xB

B D xD - x f
Similarly, =1– = (25.14)
F F xD - xB

Let us take U as the material which has particle size smaller than the aperture size, then its
mass fractions in the feed, overflow and underflow are (1 – xf), (1 – xD) and (1 – xB). This
indicates that A is the overflow material and U is the underflow material for an ideal screen. We
try to define effectiveness of screen for A (McCabe, et al. 1993) as:
546 Fundamentals of Food Engineering

A leaving in overflow Dx D
EA = = (25.15)
A entering in the feed Fx f

U leaving in the underflow B (1 - x B )

Similarly, EU = (25.16)
U entering in the feed F (1 - x f )

The overall effectiveness of the screen (hs) is the product of the effectiveness factors given
by Eqs. (25.15) and (25.16). Thus,
h s = EA × E U
Substituting D/F, B/F, EA and EU from Eqs. (25.13) to (25.16), we have

( x f - x B ) ( x D - x f ) x D (1 - x B )
hS = (25.17)
( x D - x B )2 x f (1 - x f )

Application of Eq. (25.17) to calculate the effectiveness of the screen is explained with
Problem 25.4.
PROBLEM 25.4 The typical screen analysis data for a screen of 8 mesh size is shown in
Table 25.7. Calculate the effectiveness of the screen.

Table 25.7 Screen Analysis Data

S.No. Mesh size Aperature size Cumulative Fraction of A
ds, mm
Feed Overflow Underflow
1. 4 4.699 0 0.02
2. 6 3.327 0.24 0.44 0
3. 8 2.362 0.55 0.87 0.15
4. 10 1.651 0.80 0.96 0.60
5. 14 1.168 0.90 1.0 0.76
6. 20 0.833 0.95 0.84
7. 28 0.589 0.97 0.88
8. 35 0.417 0.98 0.92
9. 48 0.295 0.99 0.94
10. 65 0.208 0.99 0.96
11. 100 0.147 1.0 1.0

Solution The data in Table 25.7 are presented in Figure 25.11. From the data, corresponding to
ds = 2.362 mm
xf = 0.55, xD = 0.87, and xB = 0.15
 Size Reduction and Separation 547
1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7
Cumulative mass fraction
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 1.0 2.0 ds 3.0 4.0 5.0

dp

Figure 25.11 Solution for Problem 25.4.

From Eq. (25.14), we have the screen efficiency

( x f - x B ) ( x D - x f ) x D (1 - x B )
hs =
( x D - x B )2 ¥ ( x f (1 - x f )

(0.55 - 0.15) (0.87 - 0.55) 0.87 (1 - 0.15)

=
(0.87 - 0.15)2 0.55 (1 - 0.55)
= 0.74

25.7 SCREENING EQUIPMENT

The choice of screening equipment depends upon the purpose for which it is used and the value
of the product (or feed) being processed. Broadly, they can be classified based on the movement
of the screen, viz.,
Stationary screens: In case of stationary screens, the movement of particles is only by gravity.
Hence, the screens are stranded in a vertical position with some inclination to the ground. They
are generally used for screening of dry solids of coarse nature. The separation need not be very
rigid, as in the case of screening of sand or some grains/pulses before going for milling. The
separation efficiency depends upon the inclination of the screen.
Vibratory screens: The screens vibrate with an electrical vibrator provided at the bottom of
the screen in axial position, or at the end of the screen (Figure 25.12(a)). The vibrations will
facilitate easy movement of the material on the screen particularly, it is more helpful if the material
is wet.
548 Fundamentals of Food Engineering

Feed Feed

Overflow Vibratory Overflow Eccentric

motion Underflow motion
Underflow

(a) Vibratory screens (b) Gyratory screens

Figure 25.12 Schematic diagram of screen separation.

Gyratory screens: The gyratory screens are mostly used for industrial operations, where
through-flow capacities are high, typically of the order of several tons per hour. The gyratory
screen consists of two screens one over the other and inclined to horizontal by about 15° – 30°.
The gyrations are provided by an eccentric (operated with motor) provided at the middle
(Figure 25.12(b)). Typically, the gyrations are of the order of 600–1800 rpm. The feed material is
fed at the upper edge of the upper screen. The feed gets segregated by the time it flows to the
bottom edge of the screen. The over sized particles are separated from the top of the screen, and
may be recycled to the sizereduction equipment. The under sized particles are collected separately
from the bottom of the screen. The fines are collected from the pan in a chute.

25.8 APPLICATIONS OF SIZE SEPARATION IN FOOD PROCESSING

Size reduction operations are usually followed by size separation operations. As such all the
applications mentioned in Table 25.2 are applicable for size separations also.
∑ One of the most classical applications of size separation operations in food processing is
in the flour milling industry. Wheat after grinding is separated into flour, sooji, semolina,
etc, by passing through various sieves.
∑ In some size reduction operations like in a fruit mill or coconut copra unit or meat mincer,
a separate size separation operation is not carried out, but a screen is built-in in the size
reduction equipment which will allow only a particular size of the particles to pass
through. The over sized particles are subjected to abrasions inside until their particle size
is reduced to pass through the screen.
∑ In some of the fresh fruit packaging units, the fruits are segregated before packaging. Only
a certain range of fruits are selected for packaging. Over sizes and under sizes are rejected.
∑ In some of the pulse-dehusking machines, the grains are segregated before milling. Only a
certain size-range of grains is taken for processing. This will help to adjust the clearance
in the milling units.

Symbols
A: area
Af : area per unit mass of feed
 Size Reduction and Separation 549
Ap: area per unit mass of product
B: bottom flow rate of the screen
D: upper flow rate of solids in the screen
dpi: particle diameter on the ith screen
d p : average particle diameter
ds : screen aperture size (mm)
E: energy required for grinding a unit mass of material (J or Wh)
EA: effectiveness of screen for separation of overflow A
EU: effectiveness of screen for separation of underflow U
ES: surface energy per unit area
F: feed rate of solids to the screen
K: constant in Eq. (25.2)
KK: Kick’s constant
KR: Rittengers’ constant
L: length of the particle (m)
m : mass flow rate (kg/s or tons/h)
n: constant in Eq. (25.2)
P: power (kW)
W i: Bonds’ work index
xi : mass fraction of i
xf : mass fraction of A in feed
xD : mass fraction of A in overflow
xB: mass fraction of A in underflow

Subscripts
f: feed
p: product
i: screen number

Greek Letters
hc: crushing efficiency
hs: screen effectiveness

REFERENCES
Bond, F.C. (1952), The third theory of comminution, AIME Trans. 193, pp. 484–494.
Chakkaravarthi, A. and Rao, D.G. (2002), Microwave drying and grinding characteristics of
garlic (Allium sativum), Indian Chemical Engineer, 44(3), pp. 180–182.
550 Fundamentals of Food Engineering

McCabe, W.L., Smith, J.C. and Harriott, P. (1993), Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering,
5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 960–1002.
Prasher, C.L. (1987), Crushing and Grinding Process Handbook, John Wiley and Sons (UK).
Velu, V., Nagender, A., Prabhakara Rao, P.G. and Rao, D.G. (2006), Dry milling characteristics
of microwave dried maize grains (Zea mays L.), J. Food Eng., 74, pp. 30–36.
Walde, S.G., Balaswamy, K., Shivaswamy, R., Chakkaravarthi, A. and Rao, D.G., (1997),
Microwave drying and grinding characteristics of gum karaya (Sterculia Urens),
J. Food Eng., 31, pp. 305–313.

REVIEW QUESTIONS
25.1 Write a brief note on size-reduction operations.
25.2 What is meant by crushing efficiency?
25.3 How do you classify size-reduction processes? Describe them briefly.
25.4 What are various laws of grinding? Explain them.
25.5 Compare and contrast various grinding laws.
25.6 Describe how Bonds’ law scores over other two grinding laws.
25.7 Describe the working of a jaw crusher.
25.8 Explain the functioning of hammer mill with a neat diagram.
25.9 Write a note on ball mill.
25.10 What are various applications of size-reduction operations in food processing?
25.11 Write a brief note on size separation.
25.12 Describe the working of a screen separator.
25.13 Write a brief note on standard sieves.
25.14 How do you arrive at the average particle size after carrying out differential sieve analysis?
25.15 What is meant by average particle size?
25.16 What is meant by effectiveness of screen?
25.17 What are various screening equipment you use in food processing?
25.18 What are various applications of size separation/screening in food processing?

NUMERICAL PROBLEMS

25.1 Velu, et al. (2006) reported the grinding studies on maize grains (Zea mays L.) in a hammer
mill operating on ½ hp motor. The initial particle size of the grains is 4.22 mm, and the
desired final particle size is 0.4 mm. The Bonds’ work index was reported to be
0.1172 kWh/kg. What should be the hourly flow rate of the feed grains?
(Ans. 9.2 kg/h)
 Size Reduction and Separation 551
25.2 Differential sieve analysis data during grinding of dry carrot grits are reported as follows.
Calculate the
(a) final average particle size
(b) aperture size through which 80 per cent of the product can pass through.

SNo. Mesh size Average Aperture size Quantity retained

(microns) (g)
1. 10/20 1265 2.0
2. 20/30 675 9.5
3. 30/40 460 7.9
4. 40/60 335 36.0
5. 60/80 215 13.0
6. 80/100 165 17.0
7. 100/120 138 14.6

(Ans. (a) 322 microns, (b) 335 microns)